Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Editorial: Some small formatting tweaks #1613

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@TimothyGu
Copy link
Member

commented Jul 7, 2019

  • Make dashes consistent; certain instances in the title of standards are not changed
  • Bold the Number value +0
Editorial: Some small formatting tweaks
- Make dashes consistent; certain instances in the title of standards
  are not changed
- Bold the Number value +0
@ljharb

ljharb approved these changes Jul 8, 2019

@@ -872,10 +872,10 @@ <h1>Mathematical Operations</h1>
</ul>

<p>In the language of this specification, numerical values and operations (including addition, subtraction, negation, multiplication, division, and comparison) are distinguished among different numeric kinds using subscripts. The subscript <sub><dfn id="𝔽">𝔽</dfn></sub> refers to Numbers, and the subscript <sub><dfn id="">ℝ</dfn></sub> refers to mathematical values. A subscript is used following each numeric value and operation.</p>
<p>For brevity, the <sub>𝔽</sub> subscript can be omitted on Number values--a numeric value with no subscript is interpreted to be a Number. An operation with no subscript is interpreted to be a Number operation, unless one of the parameters has a particular subscript, in which case the operation adopts that subscript. For example, 1<sub>ℝ</sub> + 2<sub>ℝ</sub> = 3<sub>ℝ</sub> is a statement about mathematical values, and 1 + 2 = 3 is a statement about Numbers.</p>

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@ljharb

ljharb Jul 8, 2019

Member

i have a light preference to include the spaces around em dashes; it makes the raw ecmarkup more readable,

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@TimothyGu

TimothyGu Jul 10, 2019

Author Member

Most style guides do not include spaces around em-dashes, and the spec currently does not do so either (despite @jmdyck's comment).

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@ljharb

ljharb Jul 10, 2019

Member

Sure, but many style guides also recommend omitting the Oxford comma, or avoiding singular “they” - we can certainly make our own choice here. Either way, for this PR, we should follow whatever pattern is most used for em dashes - which below comments imply is “with spaces”.

@ljharb ljharb requested review from zenparsing, tc39/ecma262-editors and jmdyck Jul 8, 2019

@jmdyck
Copy link
Collaborator

left a comment

  • Changing double-hyphen to &mdash; is fine with me. Note that GetWaiterList has a couple more of these.
  • The spec also has 3 occurrences of &ndash; that should maybe be changed to &mdash;.
  • Spaces around dash would be my preference too. Currently, the spec is divided on usage: if you include double-hyphen, mdash, and ndash, there's 8 with spaces vs 7 without.
  • Stars around +0 is fine.
@TimothyGu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jul 10, 2019

  • Changing double-hyphen to &mdash; is fine with me. Note that GetWaiterList has a couple more of these.

Fixed.

  • The spec also has 3 occurrences of &ndash; that should maybe be changed to &mdash;.

As I noted above, I did not change occurrences of &ndash; in international standard names. However, after checking the actual standard PDFs, they seem to use &mdash; with spaces around them, so I did just that.

  • Spaces around dash would be my preference too. Currently, the spec is divided on usage: if you include double-hyphen, mdash, and ndash, there's 8 with spaces vs 7 without.

Out of the 9 uses of em-dashes, 6 have spaces and 1 is in the name of a standard, which as I noted above did not change. En-dashes generally have a different style, so that's not the most relevant comparison.

@jmdyck

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jul 10, 2019

  • The spec also has 3 occurrences of &ndash; that should maybe be changed to &mdash;.

As I noted above, I did not change occurrences of &ndash; in international standard names.

Ah, so you did, sorry I missed that.

However, after checking the actual standard PDFs, they seem to use &mdash; with spaces around them, so I did just that.

If ISO were going to explicitly say "use em dash in standard names", I'd expect it to appear here in their directives. They get very close, down to the level of the elements of a title, but don't say how to separate them. However, all the example titles use U+2014 EM DASH in the HTML source. So changing our 3 occurrences of &ndash; to &mdash; seems justified.

@TimothyGu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jul 14, 2019

@jmdyck so does this PR LGTM?

@jmdyck

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jul 14, 2019

@TimothyGu: I agree with all changes in this PR, apart from the removal of spaces around em-dashes, on which I will accept the decision of the editors.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.